Mojoe Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Effective March 19, 2014 Policy is equal for accessions and current Soldiers; Current Soldiers may keep previously authorized tattoos (grandfathered) Redefined indecent tattoos Added restrictions for locations for unauthorized tattoos Soldiers’ current tattoos will be documented in online records to protect Soldiers with grandfathered tattoos and aid with implementing this policy Unauthorized tattoo locations: On the head, face, & neck, (anything above the T-shirt line to include on/inside the eyelids, mouth, & ears) On the hands, fingers, wrists (below the wrist bone) Each visible tattoo below the elbow or below the knee must be smaller than the size of the wearer’s hand (with fingers extended & joined with the thumb touching the base of the index finger) Soldiers may have no more than 4 total visible tattoos (smaller than the size of the wearer’s hand) below the elbow or below the knee TATTOO POLICY Defines small tattoos within a 5 inch diameter as one tattoo Visible band tattoos may be no more than 2” in width; Each band tattoo counts as one tattoo & Soldiers may have no more than one visible band tattoo Sleeve tattoos on arms or legs are unauthorized Officers and Warrant Officers are also restricted to this same policy; Enlisted Soldiers exceeding this limit cannot request commissioning (not grandfathered) In 2012 the Sergeant Major of the Army came and spoke to us, where we were stationed in Afganhistan. It's in my opinion, from hearing him speak about this, he simply thinks tattoo's present an unperfessional image. I think this is a combination of his goal, and the ability to reduce/ select the force. You don't have to like it. But, it's here. And this is how it is. At least until the next SGM, should they choose to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnaplay1647545503 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Dont see anything about corneal tattoos so you still have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPL_Josh Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Do the marines have a similar policy already? I remember years ago my friend getting hand tattoos lazered off the reenlist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 The big change here is "below the elbow and below the knee", and the wording "sleeves are unautherized". In addition, the restriction if you are an Officer or Warrent. For the most part, all branches have had similar guildlines prior to this. I'm not sure when or if the Marines have gone to no sleeve tattoo's. Hell, they just got the OK to roll their sleeves up on their tops again, last week. The big No no's have been nothing on the head or hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE-O Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Yea sorry your a great soldier and want to honestly fight for our country but ya see that tattoo you have I don't like it sooo you got to go. Come on son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Yea sorry your a great soldier and want to honestly fight for our country but ya see that tattoo you have I don't like it sooo you got to go. Come on son Soldiers’ current tattoos will be documented in online records to protect Soldiers with grandfathered tattoos and aid with implementing this policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Pushing soldiers to not have visible tattoos also helps them transition into professional jobs in the civilian world. Your average 18 year old recruit wouldn't be thinking of that as much as trying to fit in with their new group of peers, and if they all have the same restrictions then they don't have the chance to do something they might regret in 5 or 10 years. It also shows a level of professionalism when interacting with other cultures and even with US civilians that may be leery of soldiers for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 It will get photographed and loaded into iPerms(online records). It's only on current tat's that show in shorts and short sleeve shirts. I don't like it and think it's another task being added to a force that needs to train more Vs creating more admin BS to manage. It's because soldiers in the past have gone out and had "Fuck You" Tattoo'd on the outside edge of their right hand; so when you salute you are basically saying "Fuck You" to that officer. Soldiers have done their share to push the limits of the regulations in place. I just had to call a 30 year old with a Masters degree, looking to join to be an Officer. He looks like a MMA fighter, full sleeve, a teacher at a local school, and I had to tell him the new policy says no. This will cause many issues, none the less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE-O Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I get they won't be kicked out but in today's society how many kids get stupid tats at even 16 or younger. Yes I agree 100% it will help them later in life but so will better parenting. And sorry but a stranger walking around where I live with guns openly is going to keep me away from interaction with them far more than their skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Pushing soldiers to not have visible tattoos also helps them transition into professional jobs in the civilian world. Your average 18 year old recruit wouldn't be thinking of that as much as trying to fit in with their new group of peers, and if they all have the same restrictions then they don't have the chance to do something they might regret in 5 or 10 years. It also shows a level of professionalism when interacting with other cultures and even with US civilians that may be leery of soldiers for whatever reason. I agree with this as well. I see the good and the frustrating bad from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 This is what you get with SMA's not being in the infantry since the 90's, and the current SMA having only one deployment during one of the most deployed times in our country's history in the last 50 years, and that was as a SMG. I have a hard time with the top enlisted man not being from the main focus of the force he is in charge of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbird Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 For the most part, all branches have had similar guildlines prior to this. I'm not sure when or if the Marines have gone to no sleeve tattoo's. Hell, they just got the OK to roll their sleeves up on their tops again, last week. Can confirm. Couple of butthurt Army dudes in class commented on how we (Air Force) and Marines are allowed to and they're not. Although I have to laugh any time I see a linguist with their sleeves rolled up. It also barely breaks 60* here in Monterey, so it's hardly necessary. Yet I've seen tons of Marine bro's with their sleeves up this week, just 'cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dover Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Welp I'm fucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I get that the change is going back to a garrison Army, but I think there's more important issues than AR-670-1. I think there should be a stronger push towards training and fighting, less about how pretty one looks. From what I've heard, there's a lack of discipline out of the new recruits coming in. Sounds like the Army still don't know what it's priorities are at the upper echelon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wease Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Right or wrong, good or bad, agree or don't, tattoos do present an unprofessional image. I don't think I work with anyone that has any visible tattoos. I also know for a fact that people in my line of work, presenting too much of an unprofessional image such as this, won't be considered for the job. That's life, deal with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE-O Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Right or wrong, good or bad, agree or don't, tattoos do present an unprofessional image. I don't think I work with anyone that has any visible tattoos. I also know for a fact that people in my line of work, presenting too much of an unprofessional image such as this, won't be considered for the job. That's life, deal with it... Not so true anymore we have corp managers with full sleeves. Some jobs yes but I think overall it's becoming more and more normal everyday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Right or wrong, good or bad, agree or don't, tattoos do present an unprofessional image. I don't think I work with anyone that has any visible tattoos. I also know for a fact that people in my line of work, presenting too much of an unprofessional image such as this, won't be considered for the job. That's life, deal with it... Game, set, match. While the Armed Forces are certainly tasked with defending our borders, their most very basic purpose is to be one of the few forms of diplomacy. If we are going to use a PROFESSIONAL Army (as opposed to mustering a militia any time we need to put Kim Jong Un in his place) they should be just that; professional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdhill Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Facial tatts...I get...anything that can be covered-why does it matter? It is a personal choice. Some good choices, some bad...some will be regretted. Regardless, if you want to defend our country, it shouldn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wease Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Not so true anymore we have corp managers with full sleeves. Some jobs yes but I think overall it's becoming more and more normal everyday Not sure where you work or what you do, but in my line of work (Fortune 100 company, IT, PM work, etc.), that's not at all true. Hell, if your hair is too long and you look like a hippie, you might not get the job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 There are thousands of career fields out there. We can debate what's ok in one, but not in another, all day long. Each side has its point. People are going to put themselves in an environment with like type people, 95% of the time. The military has evolved to specialty units for its fighting force, Vs large unit forces. My company went to Jungle warfare school in 1994, 150+ Marines. Now, there is no money to train an entire unit. So, what they do is send 10 people, and then those people are suppose to go back and train the people in their company. You always lose a little bit of info that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Lots of tattoos are a post deployment ritual. It may look "unprofessional" but a majority of those that get ink during this period, got them as a symbol or they represent something. If they can be hidden, I see no issue. Hands, neck, face, head, are area that are open to the public eye. I honestly couldn't remember too many soldiers in my active duty company that didn't have some form of ink, to include officers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dover Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 It's the tatted up, dirty, cussing soldier that won this war and the wars before. So easy we are to shun them now that the work is finished. Professional? Who is anyone to define what that is. Each profession has its own standard if professional. Don't discrimination because you hide behind a computer or a desk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Facial tatts...I get...anything that can be covered-why does it matter? It is a personal choice. Some good choices, some bad...some will be regretted. Regardless, if you want to defend our country, it shouldn't matter. PT is done in shorts and a short sleeve T shirt during the summer, so tattoos on the lower legs or forearms can't be covered up. Often times PT is done on bases on foreign soil, where troops from other nations are directly interacting with our troops, along with civilians and whoever else may be around. Something else to keep in mind is when you sign up for the military, you no longer have the right to make your own choices. You become property of the US Gov, and you do as they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectragod Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Right or wrong, good or bad, agree or don't, tattoos do present an unprofessional image. I don't think I work with anyone that has any visible tattoos. I also know for a fact that people in my line of work, presenting too much of an unprofessional image such as this, won't be considered for the job. That's life, deal with it... ^^^ X1,000,000 ^^^ Not so true anymore we have corp managers with full sleeves. Some jobs yes but I think overall it's becoming more and more normal everyday Not true anymore? As we spiral down on morals and values in society today, this stupid shit has to be accepted by employers, or by others that don't want to look at some distasteful shit marked across someone's forehead. Ohio is an "at will" state, good luck getting a job or keeping a job because you exercised poor judgement. I know that sounds harsh, I don't have a problem with tattoo's, I have a problem with the stupid shit people plaster on themselves that I have to look at, you know, KKK, swastika's, I hate ____, fuck you, and all the other crap they can think of to individualize themselves as special. Nice art, I appreciate, a big steaming pile of shit as a tattoo..... not so much. And while it is one's choice to have such "art", you may find your job choices really limited. PT is done in shorts and a short sleeve T shirt during the summer, so tattoos on the lower legs or forearms can't be covered up. Often times PT is done on bases on foreign soil, where troops from other nations are directly interacting with our troops, along with civilians and whoever else may be around. Something else to keep in mind is when you sign up for the military, you no longer have the right to make your own choices. You become property of the US Gov, and you do as they say. Which is why I never joined the military, thought about it, took the test, got offered a bullshit choice of a career path blah blah blah. I choose a body shop career over the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 It's the tatted up, dirty, cussing soldier that won this war and the wars before. So easy we are to shun them now that the work is finished. Professional? Who is anyone to define what that is. Each profession has its own standard if professional. Don't discrimination because you hide behind a computer or a desk. Actually, since we took on a professional standing army instead of using the draft, our military hasn't "won" a single thing. We've accomplished a number of missions, sure, but no war has been declared and we have never come away with a clear and decisive victory with a surrender and/or total annihilation of our enemies. I blame that on CIC and political interdiction into the military, but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.